Rostock et al.

BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer

patients - a prospective observational study of
two independent cohorts
Matthias Rostock1,4*, Johannes Naumann1,2, Corina Guethlin2,5, Lars Guenther2, Hans H Bartsch1, Harald Walach3

Abstract
Background: Many cancer patients seek homeopathy as a complementary therapy. It has rarely been studied
systematically, whether homeopathic care is of benefit for cancer patients.
Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study with cancer patients in two differently treated cohorts:
one cohort with patients under complementary homeopathic treatment (HG; n = 259), and one cohort with
conventionally treated cancer patients (CG; n = 380). For a direct comparison, matched pairs with patients of the
same tumour entity and comparable prognosis were to be formed.
Main outcome parameter: change of quality of life (FACT-G, FACIT-Sp) after 3 months.
Secondary outcome parameters: change of quality of life (FACT-G, FACIT-Sp) after a year, as well as impairment by
fatigue (MFI) and by anxiety and depression (HADS).
Results: HG: FACT-G, or FACIT-Sp, respectively improved statistically significantly in the first three months, from
75.6 (SD 14.6) to 81.1 (SD 16.9), or from 32.1 (SD 8.2) to 34.9 (SD 8.32), respectively. After 12 months, a further
increase to 84.1 (SD 15.5) or 35.2 (SD 8.6) was found. Fatigue (MFI) decreased; anxiety and depression (HADS) did
not change.
CG: FACT-G remained constant in the first three months: 75.3 (SD 17.3) at t0, and 76.6 (SD 16.6) at t1. After 12
months, there was a slight increase to 78.9 (SD 18.1). FACIT-Sp scores improved significantly from t0 (31.0 - SD 8.9)
to t1 (32.1 - SD 8.9) and declined again after a year (31.6 - SD 9.4). For fatigue, anxiety, and depression, no relevant
changes were found.
120 patients of HG and 206 patients of CG met our criteria for matched-pairs selection. Due to large differences
between the two patient populations, however, only 11 matched pairs could be formed. This is not sufficient for a
comparative study.
Conclusion: In our prospective study, we observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of
fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment. It would take
considerably larger samples to find matched pairs suitable for comparison in order to establish a definite causal
relation between these effects and homeopathic treatment.

Background America too, and is increasingly sought after also in the

Many cancer patients use complementary and alterna- US [2].
tive medicine (CAM) treatments. Homeopathy is one of Developed in the 18 th century by German physician
the most popular CAM modalities for cancer patients in Samuel Hahnemann, it is based on two principles, the Law
seven out of 14 European countries [1]. Homeopathy of Similars ("similia similibus curentur: let likes be cured
has traditionally been very popular in India and South by likes”) and Individualisation, and it makes use of a spe-
cific form of remedy preparation, the stepwise dilution
and potentisation [3].
* Correspondence: matthias.rostock@usz.ch
1
Tumour Biology Center at Albert Ludwig’s University Freiburg, Germany
Homeopathy is discussed controversially as there is no
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article plausible mode of action for the highly diluted remedies,
© 2011 Rostock et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19
and whether it is clinically effective is currently a matter
of heated debate. While some reviews and meta-analyses
find it potentially efficacious (e.g. [4], [5]), a recent ana-
lysis finds it no better than placebo [6]. However, the
latter analysis has been heavily criticised and recently
shown to be extremely dependent on decisions as to
which trials to select for analysis [7]. Hence the debate
is unresolved.
In cancer patients homeopathy has rarely been studied
systematically. A Cochrane Review of homeopathic medi-
cines for adverse effects of cancer treatments found eight
randomised controlled studies with mixed results [8].
A second systematic review concluded that the “evidence
is encouraging but not convincing” [9]. The effects of
homeopathy on quality of life in cancer patients has been
studied very rarely. Only two randomised trials used it as
a secondary outcome, one with and one without positive
results [10], [11]. A retrospective hypotheses generating
study in a clinic specialising in the homeopathic care of
cancer patients found that the majority of patients indi-
cated that they had improved in QoL due to their
homeopathic treatment, as well as in fatigue symptoms
and psychological well-being (Rostock M, Hinrichs I,
Walach H.: Homeopathic treatment of cancer patients: a
retrospective analysis, submitted).
Most trials of homeopathy have not studied classical
homeopathy that individualises treatments for patients,
but used either fixed combinations for certain symptom
clusters, or isopathy, i.e. the same substance that triggers
an allergic response, or simplified versions of homeop-
athy. In those cases it is comparatively easy to conduct
randomised, placebo controlled studies. We wanted to
study the clinical effects of classical homeopathy. This
entails complex interviews, selection of important symp-
toms with multiple cycles of adjustments according to
feedback, and long term observations [12,13]. Blinding
such procedures, although performed sometimes [14], is
only possible for a short period, and there are grave
doubts as to the validity of the results achieved by it.
Patients with cancer or other serious chronic diseases
who seek out complementary care normally have very
clear preferences [15]. They are mostly unwilling to
enter an experiment and submit to randomisation
[16-20]. In the spirit of a staged evaluation approach it
is mandatory to study the effects of treatments for
patients who have actively chosen them, since free
choice is part and parcel of a potentially important ther-
apeutic step [21]. We therefore set out to study classical
homeopathic care for cancer patients, as chosen by
patients, including all elements of case taking, setting,
social support and the dispensation of homeopathic
remedies, and compare it with a conventional setting.
We wanted to see whether patients benefit, overall, in
Page 2 of 8
QoL from homeopathic care. Therefore we conducted
an observational study with two natural cohorts to
monitor the developing of QoL under homeopathic and
under conventional care. For a direct comparison we
planned to form matched pairs out of patients with
matchable case histories from both cohorts as a nested
feasibility study.
Methods
Over a period of 30 months all new patients who chose
treatment either in two clinics specialising in homeo-
pathic care (Clinica Santa Croce, Orselina, Switzerland,
and Homeopathic Centre Oberland-Klinik, Weilheim,
Germany) or in two conventional specialised oncological
outpatient clinics with cancer care according to state of
the art (Clinic for Interdisciplinary Oncology and Hema-
tology, Freiburg, Germany, and Clinic for Oncology and
Hematology, Offenburg, Germany) were approached and
included in a prospective observational study, once they
had given informed consent. All patients received the
normal standard of care offered in each place without
any experimental intervention or interference with the
treatment plan. The homeopathic clinics offered a consti-
tutional homeopathic treatment according to the princi-
ples of classical homeopathy accompanying or following
conventional cancer treatment. This consisted in an inpa-
tient stay of approximately one to two weeks for the
purpose of finding the correct remedy and phone consul-
tations after patients had gone back home. Details of the
treatment have been published elsewhere [12,13].
Our protocol stipulated that patients from both the
conventional and homeopathic cohort were to be com-
pared based on the matching criteria of demographic
data, clinical data of tumour disease, staging and pre-
vious treatment. This entailed that for this direct com-
parison only patients in a palliative stage could be
selected, while in the observational study part all cancer
patients - in adjuvant and in palliative stages - who gave
their informed consent were included.
Thus, there were three parts to the whole project:
1. A cross-sectional study comparing patient charac-
teristics of the two cohorts at the time of study
entry [22].
2. A longitudinal observation of two cohorts over 12
months, one of homeopathic care, one of conven-
tional care with the questions:
a. Is there any difference between the cohorts
concerning their conventional or complementary
treatment over the course of the year?
b. Are there any changes under the course of the
treatment in each cohort related to Qol, psycho-
logical wellbeing, fatigue and patient satisfaction?
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19
3. An integrated nested matched pairs comparison
between comparable patients in both cohorts regard-
ing their QoL as a feasibility study.
This paper reports on the second part of the project
and summarizes the results of the first and the third
part.
Measures were patient self-reports, taken at study entry
and every 3 months over the course of one year, filled in
by patients at intake and sent by post and directly back
to the study centre thereafter. Medical records were
taken by the treating physicians using case report forms
(CRF). Patient records (CRFs) were checked for comple-
teness and information regarding previous treatments
and diagnostic information verified at study entry and
completion by a monitor. All measures were used in the
appropriate and validated German language versions.
Our primary outcome was change in QoL, as measured
by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy -
General (FACT-G) [23] in conjunction with the Func-
tional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual
Well-Being (FACIT-Sp) [24]. We defined change scores
after 3 months and after 12 months as the points of
interest to document short and mid-term effects.
Secondary parameters were:
- Change of fatigue, measured by the Multidimen-
sional Fatigue Inventory, MFI [25].
- Change of psychological wellbeing, measured by the
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS [26].
- Patient satisfaction measured by three single items.
Case Report forms documented the sociodemographic
parameters, diagnostic information (tumour entity, sta-
tus, histology, staging, time since diagnosis, progression,
metastases), previous treatment (surgery, radiation, che-
motherapy, hormone therapy, other treatments), current
treatment and survival status.
We included all patients older than 18 years who suf-
fered from a verified tumour disease and who gave
informed consent to participation. Since we wanted these
data to be as representative as possible we did not apply
any exclusion criteria.
Matched Pairs:
Patients who fulfilled the following criteria were
included in the matched pairs analysis:
- Histological evidence of malignity
- Evidence for a progressed malignity that is
uncurable
- Likely life expectancy of 3 months or more
For each prospective matched-pairs patient all poten-
tial matching criteria (see Table 1) were entered in a
Page 3 of 8
Table 1 Matching Criteria
1. Demographics
• age
• sex
• general wellbeing (ECOG-status)
• Body Mass Index (BMI)
2. Tumour Disease
• type
• histology
• staging (TNM status)
• time of first diagnosis
• time of diagnosis of tumour progress
• tumour recurrence or metastases and localisation
3. Previous Therapies
• surgery
• chemotherapy
• radiation therapy
• hormone therapy
• immunotherapy
• other therapies
database and a case vignette was constructed with all
relevant data. These were presented to three oncologists
otherwise not involved in the treatment of the patients
at any time and blind against outcome and further
development. Each oncologist decided which patients
could be paired. In a final conference they had to find a
consensus.
Data Treatment and Statistics
All case report forms were monitored and information
verified against documentation and patient records.
Patient self-report data were entered using a scanning
system. Data are presented descriptively, with t-tests for
dependent data for significant changes within the
groups. Effect sizes are expressed as mean differences,
using pooled standard deviations in the denominator.
A previous retrospective pilot-study had shown that
we can expect a good patient participation in the
homeopathic clinic with roughly 200 patients in two
years. However, we had no indication of a prospective
effect size to go by and hence opted for a feasible num-
ber of 200 homeopathy patients recruited over a two
year period. We aimed at a core of at least 40 matched
pairs and hence at a recruitment of 800 to 1000 patients
from the conventional clinics, a figure mentioned as rea-
listic by the participating recruitment centres in several
planning meetings. The study was conducted according
to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the declaration of
Helsinki. It was approved by the ethics committee of the
University Hospital Freiburg, Germany and the respec-
tive local committees of Bellinzona, Switzerland and
Stuttgart, Germany.
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19 Page 4 of 8
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19

Results melanoma (5% vs. 1%) sought the complementary

Between 1st Oct 2004 and 30th April 2007 we enrolled 639
patients in the study, 259 from the homeopathic clinics
and 380 from the conventional clinics (see Figure 1).
Thus, we met our target in the homeopathic clinics but
failed by a wide margin to recruit enough patients from
the conventional clinics.
Nearly all patients (96%) who had given consent in the
homeopathy group (HG) and 82% of all patients
included in the conventional group (CG) sent back the
questionnaires at the beginning. After 3 months we
received back questionnaires from 69% of the HG and
68% of the CG and after 12 months from 56% of the
HG and 57% of the CG. In the HG 23% and in the CG
20% of the patients had died. Thus 21% or 23% of all
data was missing. Baseline data with exact descriptions
of both therapy groups sociodemographics and clinical
variables as type of cancer, tumor stages and course of
treatment before study entry have been extensively
reported elsewhere [22] and are summarised here.
Differences between the two cohorts at study entry
Patients in the two groups differed in several sociode-
mographic and disease variables. Homeopathy patients
were younger (54 vs. 60 years), had a much higher level
of post-16 education (post secondary school/A-level,
54% vs. 25%), and were more likely to be white collar
workers or in self-employed jobs (workers, employees
48% vs. 75%).
In both groups the most frequent tumour diagnosis
was breast cancer (32% HG vs. 37% CG). In CG more
patients with colorectal cancer were found (15% vs. 7%),
while more patients with prostate cancer (7% vs. 3%) or
homeopathic treatment. Patients from the HG were
more likely to have a more severe diagnosis or progressed
tumour stage (stage I-III only 30% vs. 43% in CG).
Homeopathy patients also had a longer elapsed time
since their first diagnosis (10 months vs. 3 months), and
were more likely to have already had some previous
cancer treatment (50% chemotherapy vs. 33%). This con-
firms the general impression of homeopathic doctors that
patients decide to come for homeopathic treatment after
having spent some time in the conventional medical
system, whereas patients in the CG were more likely to
not have tried any other treatment previously.
Differences between the cohorts concerning therapies
during the observation period
As expected, a larger proportion of patients under con-
ventional treatment received chemotherapy or radiation
during the 1 year observation period (Table 2). Other
treatments, such as immunotherapy or kinase inhibitors
were roughly comparable between the groups. Only a
few patients, 6,6%, in the CG, did not receive any con-
ventional treatment, whereas 25,6% in the HG had no
such treatment, mainly because there was no indication
for an antitumour treatment (e.g. adjuvant chemother-
apy and/or radiotherapy was already finished before
study entry). However, as many as 10% of the HG had
an indication for treatment from an oncological point of
view but had refused it.
Patients in both cohorts used other CAM therapies.
While in the CG vitamins and mistletoe treatments
were used increasingly, patients under homeopathy
remained constant or even reduced their usage of these
and other CAM treatments (data not shown).

Homeopathy Conventional Care Changes in Quality of Life, Fatigue and psychological

(N = 259) (Informed consent) (N = 380) wellbeing
Although patients in the two cohorts were quite differ-
N = 250 (96%) N = 310 (82%)
missing data: N = 9 (4%)
T0 missing data: N = 70 (18%) ent, quality of life (QoL) scores, anxiety, depression and
fatigue were very similar in both groups at the begin-
N = 179 (69%) N = 261 (68%) ning of the study. Over the course of 1 year and under
died: N = 13 ( 5%) T1 died: N = 10 ( 3%)
(3 months) homeopathic treatment, QoL improved by a significant
m.d.: N = 67 (26%) m.d.: N = 109 (29%)
degree from a mean of 75.6 to 84.1 in the FACT-G,
and from 32.1 to 35.2 in the FACIT-Sp (see Table 3).
N = 165 (64%) N = 275 (72%)
died: N = 36 (14%) T2 died: N = 35 ( 9%) This is an improvement by an effect size of d = 0.57 for
m.d.: N = 58 (22%) (6 months) m.d.: N = 70 (18%)
the FACT-G and d = 0.37 for the FACIT-Sp. For patients
under conventional care QoL remained largely constant
N = 153 (59%) N = 234 (62%) with 75.3 at intake and 78.9 after one year for the FACT-
died: N = 49 (19%) T3 died: N = 55 (14%)
m.d.: N = 57 (22%) (9 months) m.d.: N = 91 (24%) G and 31.0 at intake and 31.6 after a year for the FACIT-
Sp. Associated effect sizes are d = 0.2 and d = 0.06.
N = 144 (56%)
T4
N = 217 (57%) Effects after three months of treatment were similar.
died: N = 59 (23%) died: N = 76 (20%)
m.d.: N = 56 (21%) (12 months) m.d.: N = 87 (23%) In the homeopathy cohort, but not in the conventional
cohort, fatigue decreased significantly in all scales of the
Figure 1 Flow chart.
Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) after three
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19 Page 5 of 8
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19

Table 2 Conventional Treatment treatment at a later stage than their conventional counter-
HOMEOPATHY CONVENTIONAL parts. While conventional patients accessed treatment on
N (%) CARE N(%) average 3 months after first diagnosis or after diagnosis of
Therapies t0-t1 tumour progress, patients in homeopathic care only
Surgery 11 (4,3%) 14 (3,7%) started treatment 10 months after first diagnosis in an
Chemotherapy 53 (20,5%) 244 (64,2%) adjuvant situation resp. 7 months after a progress had
Radiation 21 (8,1%) 38 (10,0%) been diagnosed. This explains the higher rate of patients
Hormone therapy 34 (13,2%) 48 (12,6%) pre-treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy in homeo-
Other therapies (kinase 25 (9,7%) 52 (13,7%) pathic care.
inhibitors, etc.) While most patients used homeopathic care comple-
mentary to an appropriate oncological treatment, 10%
Therapies t1-t4 refused to have such a treatment for various reasons
Surgery 14 (5,4%) 19 (5,0%) and seek homeopathic treatment as an alternative. It is
Chemotherapy 1st line 56 (21,7%) 199 (52,4%) important to emphasise at this point that this patient
Chemotherapy 2nd line 20 (7,8%) 64 (16,8%) decision was neither encouraged nor discouraged by the
Chemotherapy 3rd line 10 (3,9%) 26 (6,8%) homeopathic physicians and has for the most part been
Chemotherapy 4th line 5 (1,9%) 3 (0,8%) taken before patients came to the clinic. All patients had
Radiation 22 (8,5%) 57 (15,0%) been informed about the fact that the decision as to
Hormone therapy 40 (15,5%) 71 (18,7%) which therapy to have or not to have falls within their
Other therapies (kinase 31 (12%) 44 (11,5%) and their doctors’ joint responsibility, as there was no
inhibitors, etc.)
experimental treatment within this observational study.
Despite the considerable difference in disease status of
months as well as after one year, but only for mental the two cohorts it is remarkable that their initial scores
fatigue, physical activity and physical fatigue did the in virtually all self-reported measures in quality of life,
change amount to half a standard deviation. No changes fatigue, anxiety and depression at baseline are quite
were seen in both cohorts regarding the HADS. comparable. Compared with norm data [27] and oncolo-
The data for the sub-cohorts of patients in progressed gical cohorts [26,28] our patients have a more severely
tumour stages who were eligible for matching were very reduced QoL, more anxiety and depression and compar-
similar. Here we show only the data for the primary able fatigue.
outcome parameter (Table 4). There were no differences During homeopathic care we saw a significant and
between HG and CG in patient satisfaction regarding stable improvement in QoL which, as measured by the
doctors as well as treatment results (data not shown). FACT G, is sizeable at more than half a standard devia-
tion. We do not see a comparable increase in QoL in
Matched Pairs the conventionally treated cohort. Such an effect size of
120 patients of HG and 206 patients of CG met our cri- more than half a standard deviation is by all standards a
teria for the matched-pairs selection. Due to the large clinically relevant improvement [29,30]. Some authors
differences between the two patient populations, how- consider an improvement of 3 to 7 points on the
ever, only 11 matched pairs could be formed, including FACT-G as the minimally important difference (MID)
2 pairs each with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, NSCLC, [31,32], which is achieved by our homeopathy cohort
pancreatic- and colon cancer and one pair with glioblas- who experienced an improvement by 5.5 points after 3
toma. This is not a sufficient number for a reliable months and by 8.5 points after 12 months. While
comparison. Data described in detail will be submitted depression and anxiety did not change much, as mea-
separately. sured by the HADS, fatigue improved significantly
across all scales. Homeopathic care patients experienced
Discussion an improvement of at least half a standard deviation
This is, to our knowledge, the first longitudinal study of after 12 months for mental fatigue, and both mental and
cancer patients under homeopathic care in a parallel physical fatigue improved to a degree that according to
group design with conventional care and the attempt for new norm data can be deemed a minimal clinically
a nested matched pairs comparison. Our primary aim important difference [28].
was to see whether cancer patients under homeopathic In the conventionally treated group improvements
care experience a benefit in their quality of life, psycho- were much smaller, failing half a standard deviation
logical well-being and fatigue. change by a wide margin. The MID is marginally
At study entry homeopathic patients were, roughly reached with an improvement of 3.6 on the FACT-G
speaking, more severely affected and initiated homeopathic after 12 months of treatment. Nevertheless, patients of
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19 Page 6 of 8
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19

Table 3 Quality of Life, Spiritual Wellbeing, Fatigue, Anxiety and Depression

HOMEOPATHY CONVENTIONAL CARE
t01 t1 (n = 179) t4 (n = 140) t01 t1 (n = 261) t4 (n = 191)
FACT-G
FACT-G 75.6 (14.6) 81.1 (16.9)*** 84.1 (15.5)*** 75.3 (17.3) 76.6 (16.6)* 78.9 (18.1)***
Physical Wellbeing 20.6 (5.9) 22.1 (6.3)*** 23.4 (5.1)*** 20.6 (5.9) 20.1 (6.3) 21.8 (5.9)***
Social/Family Wellbeing 21.2 (4.0) 21.8 (4.4)** 21.6 (4.7) 21.0 (4.4) 21.9(4.6)*** 21.0 (4.8)
Emotional Wellbeing 17.0 (4.2) 16.6 (4.4)*** 19.1 (3.9)*** 16.9 (5.1) 17.8(4.6)*** 18.0 (4.7)***
Functional Wellbeing 16.8 (5.6) 18.6 (6.0)*** 20.0 (5.7)*** 16.9 (6.0) 17.1 (5.7) 18.2 (6.2)***
FACIT-Sp
FACIT-Sp 32.1 (8.2) 34.9 (8.3)*** 35.2 (8.6)*** 31.0 (8.9) 32.1 (8.9)** 31.6 (9.4)
Meaning Peace 9.1 (4.6) 9.9 (4.7)*** 10.2 (4.5)*** 8.2 (4.8) 8.4 (4.9) 8.2 (4.8)
Faith 23.4 (5.5) 25.0 (5.0)*** 25.0 (5.4)*** 23.4 (5.5) 23.8 (5.6) 23.5 (6.0)
HADS
HADS-A 9.7 (1.6) 9.6 (1.1) 9.7 (1.2) 9.9 (1.4) 9.9 (1.4) 10.1 (1.3)
HADS-D 9.0 (1.7) 8.7 (1.7) 8.8 (1.5) 8.3 (1.6) 8.4 (1.8) 8.4 (1.6)
MFI
General Fatigue 11.9 (2.6) 11.4 (2.6)** 11.1 (2.6)** 11.9 (3.2) 12.0 (2.7) 11.8 (2.7)
Physical Fatigue 11.9 (5.2) 10.4 (5.2)*** 9.5 (4.9)*** 11.6 (5.2) 12.1 (5.2) 10.7 (4.9)**
Reduced Activity 11.8 (4.8) 10.4 (5.0)*** 9.5 (3.2)*** 11.8 (5.4) 11.5 (5.3) 10.5 (4.9)***
Reduced Motivation 8.8 (3.5) 7.7 (3.9)** 7.4 (3.2)*** 9.1 (4.4) 9.0 (4.0) 8.7 (3.7)*
Mental Fatigue 10.6 (4.6) 9.3 (4.7)*** 8.3 (4.0)*** 9.8 (5.0) 9.3 (4.7)* 9.8 (4.8)
FACT: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy; G: General;
FACIT-Sp: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy- Spiritual Wellbeing.
HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: A - Anxiety; D - Depression.
MFI: Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory.
Mean (SD).
1
baseline data of patients with valuable data at t1.
*P ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.

both groups were satisfied with their treatment and their
doctors.
One possible explanation for the lack of improvement
in QoL in the CG is that considerably more patients of
this cohort got chemo- or radiotherapy with possible
acute side effects. This accounts for differences in the
first three months, but after a time period of twelve
months these differences should have washed out, espe-
cially because there were even more patients in a pallia-
tive treatment situation in the HG, and one important
aim of the antitumour therapy is an improvement in
QoL in the long run.
Since the cohorts were quite different, as expected from
the outset, we refrained from any formal testing of the
between group differences for the whole cohorts. For that
reason we had anticipated a matched-pairs analysis. Since
recruitment in the conventional centres fell considerably
below the anticipated numbers we could not obtain the 40
matched pairs anticipated. Also, the complex matching
process devised, with 3 oncologists having to agree on a
comparatively large set of initial data, led to the fact that
only very few potentially matchable pairs could be found.
One might consider a randomised study whereby studying
homeopathy as a complementary add-on an alternative.

Table 4 Quality of Life and Spiritual Wellbeing in palliative patients

HOMEOPATHY CONVENTIONAL CARE
t01 t1 (n = 73) t4 (n = 49) t01 t1 (n = 140) t4 (n = 85)
FACT-G 74.6 (15.2) 79.3 (17.3)** 81.9 (15.8)*** 73.3 (17.3) 74.8 (17.9) 73.1 (19.2)
FACIT-Sp 31.3 (8.8) 34.3 (8.8)*** 35.1 (8.8)*** 30.6 (9.8) 31.6 (9.2)* 30.1 (9.9)
FACT: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy; G: General;
FACIT-Sp: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Wellbeing.
Mean (SD).
1
baseline data of patients with valuable data at t1.
*P ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19
However, since there are so many differentiating factors
influencing prognosis in tumour therapy, only a very large
randomised study or a study using intricate balancing pro-
cedures [33] would have a chance of offering valid
answers. In view of the experiences of other researchers
mentioned in the Introduction and from the experience of
our own study we doubt that cancer patients with a vested
interest in homeopathic treatment will be willing to be
randomised or allocated to treatments by processes other
than their decision. It is unlikely that enough patients
without preference would be willing to consent to be
potentially randomised to either treatment.
A matched pairs study with sufficient power would
have to document a number of conventionally treated
patients by the factor 10 to 15 more than our study.
This is not impossible to achieve, but a considerable
effort. While it has been comparatively easy to include
enough homeopathically treated patients it is difficult to
recruit conventionally treated patients, as they and their
physicians lack incentive.
The drawback of this study, that only the observa-
tional study part is evaluable by a very small number of
comparable pairs, is obvious and does not allow for a
final conclusion. The study also has clear strengths: We
have subjected all data to rigorous validation procedures
and have taken care to verify especially diagnostic and
therapeutic information. Patient data are independent
and hence likely free from bias. All patients willing to
participate have been included, making our sample fairly
representative for cancer patients seeking homeopathic
care or modern standard conventional care. We have
paid attention to comparing only strong exemplars of
the treatments in question. The homeopathic clinics
studied are well recognised in the field as the absolute
experts in homeopathic care in cancer patients and
have a very good reputation. So do the conventional
clinics representing the state of the art in German
oncology.
It is important to notice that we have not studied the
effect of homeopathic remedies, but of homeopathic
care. This comprises the whole setting of case taking,
individualisation, finding the right remedy and following
up on the perceived effects in multiple cycles of feed-
back and adjustment. It goes without saying that this is
an intensive communicative, interactive process that
operates via many different pathways, some of which are
likely to be psychological and very general in the sense
of a meaning response [34], some of which might be
specific to homeopathic therapy and its usage of the
remedies. It is also a likely scenario that homeopathic
remedies are only active in an unbroken therapeutic
context and that, at least for practical therapeutic rea-
sons, the question whether homeopathic remedies are
placebo or not, is irrelevant.
Page 7 of 8
Conclusions
We have shown that under homeopathic care sizeable
benefits were achieved for patients’ QoL, as measured
by FACT-G and also for spiritual well-being as mea-
sured by the FACIT-Sp. The improvement was clinically
relevant and statistically significant. It could also be seen
in symptoms of physical and mental fatigue. Thus our
data suggest that classical homeopathic care could com-
plement conventional cancer care to the benefit of
patients. However, the attempt to prove a definite verifi-
cation by using a Matched Pair control concept did not
succeed.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to Dr. Dario Spinedi, the founder and director of Clinica
Sta Croce, who invited this study, and his homeopathic colleagues the
doctors Keller, Kaess, Ködel, Lehrcke, Lurati, Malchow, Takacz, Waibel, and
Wurster, as well as to the two teams of oncologists Drs. Kirste, Linz,
Marschner, Müller, Jakob, Semsek, and Zaiss, as well as to all patients who
took on the burden to fill in the questionnaires at a difficult time in their
lives. We thank Sonja Falk, Tanja Csauscher, and Sonis Isabel Estevao Grilo for
data handling and we thank Dr. Schmid and Dr. Scheunert for their support
in the matching process.
The H.W.& J.Hector Foundation, Weinheim, Germany, and the Samueli
Institute, Alexandria, VA, provided the funding for this study.
Author details
1
Tumour Biology Center at Albert Ludwig’s University Freiburg, Germany.
2
Dept. of Evaluation Research in Complementary Medicine, University
Hospital Freiburg, Germany. 3Institute for Transcultural Health Studies and
Samueli Institute, European Office, Europa Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt
(Oder), Germany. 4Institute of Complementary Medicine, University Hospital
Zurich, Switzerland. 5Institute for General Practice, Johann Wolfgang Goethe
University Frankfurt, Germany.
Authors’ contributions
HW, MR, HHB and CG designed the study. JN, MR, LG, and CG collected the
data. MR, LG and HHB lead the matching process. CG carried out the
statistical analyses. MR, HW, CG, and HHB drafted the manuscript, and all
authors participated in the interpretation of the findings, reviewed the
manuscript and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
Harald Walach’s position is funded by Heel pharmaceutical company, Baden-
Baden, Germany.
None of the other authors has any conflict of interest.
Received: 11 September 2010 Accepted: 17 January 2011
Published: 17 January 2011
References
1. Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, et al: Use of complementary and
alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey. Ann Oncol
2005, 16:655-663.
2. Frenkel M: Homeopathy in cancer care. Altern Ther Health Med
16:12-16.
3. Walach H, Jonas WB, Ives J, et al: Research on homeopathy: state of the
art. J Altern Complement Med 2005, 11:813-829.
4. Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K: A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann
Intern Med 2003, 138:393-399.
5. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al: Are the clinical effects of
homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled
trials. Lancet 1997, 350:834-843.
6. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al: Are the clinical effects of
homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled
trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005, 366:726-732.
Rostock et al. BMC Cancer 2011, 11:19 Page 8 of 8
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19

7. Ludtke R, Rutten AL: The conclusions on the effectiveness of 30. King MT, Fayers PM: Making quality-of-life results more meaningful for
homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol clinicians. Lancet 2008, 371:709-710.
2008, 61:1197-1204. 31. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness
8. Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, et al: Homeopathic medicines for Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and
adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:79.
CD004845. 32. Yost KJ, Eton DT: Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches
9. Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E: Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience.
treatment. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:282-289. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28:172-191.
10. Jacobs J, Herman P, Heron K, et al: Homeopathy for menopausal 33. Aickin M: Randomization, balance, and the validity and efficiency of
symptoms in breast cancer survivors: a preliminary randomized design-adaptive allocation methods. Journal of Statistical Planning and
controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med 2005, 11:21-27. Inference 2001, 94:97-119.
11. Thompson EA, Montgomery A, Douglas D, Reilly D: A pilot randomized, 34. Moerman DE, Jonas WB: Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding
double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of individualized homeopathy the meaning response. Ann Intern Med 2002, 136:471-476.
for symptoms of estrogen withdrawal in breast-cancer survivors. J Altern
Complement Med 2005, 11:13-20. Pre-publication history
12. Spinedi D: Die Krebsbehandlung in der Homöopathie Kempten: Cheiron The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
Verlag; 1999, In Edition. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/19/prepub
13. Takacs M: Erfahrungen bei der Krebsbehandlung in der Clinica Santa
Croce (Orselina, Schweiz). Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung 2004, doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-19
249:232-239. Cite this article as: Rostock et al.: Classical homeopathy in the treatment
14. Walach H, Haeusler W, Lowes T, et al: Classical homeopathic treatment of of cancer patients - a prospective observational study of two
chronic headaches. Cephalalgia 1997, 17:119-126, discussion 101. independent cohorts. BMC Cancer 2011 11:19.
15. Mitzdorf U, Beck K, Horton-Hausknecht J, et al: Why do patients seek
treatment in hospitals of complementary medicine? J Altern Complement
Med 1999, 5:463-473.
16. Rostock M, Huber R: Randomized and double-blind studies–demands and
reality as demonstrated by two examples of mistletoe research. Forsch
Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2004, 11(Suppl 1):18-22.
17. Katz T, Fisher P, Katz A, et al: The feasibility of a randomised, placebo-
controlled clinical trial of homeopathic treatment of depression in
general practice. Homeopathy 2005, 94:145-152.
18. Lüdtke R, Schmück M, Gerhard I: Methodische Überlegungen zum
Wirksamkeitsnachweis der homöopathischen Einzelmittelbehandlung
von Zyklusstörungen. Forschende Komplementärmedizin 1997, 4:28-32.
19. von Rohr E, Pampallona S, van Wegberg B, et al: Experiences in the
realisation of a research project on anthroposophical medicine in
patients with advanced cancer. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 2000,
130:1173-1184.
20. Gerhard I, Abel U, Loewe-Mesch A, et al: Problems of randomized studies
in complementary medicine demonstrated in a study on mistletoe
treatment of patients with breast cancer. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass
Naturheilkd 2004, 11:150-157.
21. Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V, et al: Circular instead of hierarchical:
methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions.
BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:29.
22. Guethlin C, Walach H, Naumann J, et al: Characteristics of cancer patients
using homeopathy compared with those in conventional care: a cross-
sectional study. Ann Oncol 2010, 21:1094-1099.
23. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al: The Functional Assessment of Cancer
Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J
Clin Oncol 1993, 11:570-579.
24. Peterman AH, Fitchett G, Brady MJ, et al: Measuring spiritual well-being in
people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness
therapy–Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp). Ann Behav Med 2002,
24:49-58.
25. Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B, De Haes JC: The Multidimensional Fatigue
Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess
fatigue. J Psychosom Res 1995, 39:315-325.
26. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67:361-370. and take full advantage of:
27. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K: Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality
of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Qual
• Convenient online submission
Life Res 2002, 11:207-221.
28. Purcell A, Fleming J, Bennett S, et al: Determining the minimal clinically • Thorough peer review
important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory • No space constraints or color figure charges
in a radiotherapy population. Support Care Cancer 18:307-315.
29. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, et al: Combining anchor and distribution-based • Immediate publication on acceptance
methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
scales. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002, 24:547-561.

Submit your manuscript at

www.biomedcentral.com/submit
BioMed Central publishes under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL). Under the CCAL, authors
retain copyright to the article but users are allowed to download, reprint, distribute and /or copy articles in
BioMed Central journals, as long as the original work is properly cited.